Well, i'd say the chances of Pittsburgh taking on Luongo's deal after they went and broke the bank with Malkin, are now between slim and none!

They have nearly identical cap hits...

Alex116

Posted - 06/13/2013 : 12:25:31 Well, i'd say the chances of Pittsburgh taking on Luongo's deal after they went and broke the bank with Malkin, are now between slim and none!

Alex116

Posted - 06/13/2013 : 00:53:45

quote:Originally posted by Statman

Man, I miss the old days when you didn't have to be a capologist to talk about trades.

Well said!!! I still don't fully "get it"!!!

Statman

Posted - 06/12/2013 : 16:43:54 Man, I miss the old days when you didn't have to be a capologist to talk about trades.

nuxfan

Posted - 06/12/2013 : 15:56:53

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Thanks for the apology, but after reading I have also found holes to my own arguement. All is well as I think most people didn't have a good understanding of the rules because they hadn't ratified all of the details when the lockout ended. I had misunderstood that an amnesty buyout was at 100% value for the whole term of the contract when it is only 100% for year 2012/2013, then returning to prior compliance rules of 2/3 for twice as long.

Loungo's contract in a few year's could be a benefit for whichever team he is playing for, whereas his cap hit will be higher than his salary and would make him attractive to a team like the Islanders who generally look to pickup other teams excess cap hits with lower actual salary. Tim Thomas's salary this year provided them enough to reach the cap floor. Don't know if Loungo wants to play in Brooklyn or for the Islanders again, but with the potential that team has, I am intrigued at that possibility.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

There was something in the local news about NYI inquiring into Luongo last week. Apparently there is real interest, but the devil's in the details.... At this point, Luongo will probably go anywhere that he can be a starter.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 06/12/2013 : 15:00:41 Thanks for the apology, but after reading I have also found holes to my own arguement. All is well as I think most people didn't have a good understanding of the rules because they hadn't ratified all of the details when the lockout ended. I had misunderstood that an amnesty buyout was at 100% value for the whole term of the contract when it is only 100% for year 2012/2013, then returning to prior compliance rules of 2/3 for twice as long.

Loungo's contract in a few year's could be a benefit for whichever team he is playing for, whereas his cap hit will be higher than his salary and would make him attractive to a team like the Islanders who generally look to pickup other teams excess cap hits with lower actual salary. Tim Thomas's salary this year provided them enough to reach the cap floor. Don't know if Loungo wants to play in Brooklyn or for the Islanders again, but with the potential that team has, I am intrigued at that possibility.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

nuxfan

Posted - 06/11/2013 : 22:15:09 First of all, I need to correct my previous stance - somewhere in this thread I stopped considering that if VAN uses an amnesty buyout, there is no cap ramification for them. Apologies to Joshua for arguing a point that isn't actually a point

To clarify: The Canucks have 2 choices with Luongo:

1. Buy him out at 27M over 18 years as one of their amnesty buyouts. The Canucks would pay roughly 1.8M to him for each of the next 18 years, but would not suffer a cap penalty for doing so. They would get nothing for him in return.

2. Trade him, and risk the fact that he retires at some point before his contract, at which point the Canucks would incur a cap penalty, amount and term TBD. The Canucks save 27M, and likely get something for him in return.

With those choices, it is not as simple as I had suggested upthread. Although they can afford it, something tells me that the owners are not thrilled with the prospect of shelling out nearly 2M a year for the next 18 years on something that does not belong to them - who would be? I do think that they'll try to trade him and risk the early retirement penalty later down the road.

The trade for Fleury is intriguing - for that type of trade I would expect VAN to get additional value for Luongo, as they would be burning a compliance buyout on a player they didn't consider having. 6.7M over the next 4 years is far more palatable than the Luongo buyout.

There is even the prospect of a huge twist - trade Luongo for Fleury+value, then also trade Schneider for super value. Fleury becomes the starting goalie for VAN for the next 2 years @ 5M cap hit, and after his contract expires they address goaltending then. They could resign Fleury, or go in a completely different direction. They have 2 very solid prospects in the minors right now (Lack and Cannata), and could go the FA route for a reliable backup. Now that would be a shakeup!

Once again, apologies to Joshua, I was arguing something that was not accurate. And after I'd called you out for doing the same thing, shameful!

Alex116

Posted - 06/11/2013 : 16:03:32 nuxfan.....still not sure i follow. Admittedly, i've never really read up on the entire buyout vs cap hit vs salary owed stuff but from what you just said/wrote, it doesn't seem nearly as bad as i originally thought for the Canucks if they were to actually buy Luongo out? BTW, it's not something i think they've given much thought considering they were holding out hope of getting a good asset in return.

nuxfan

Posted - 06/11/2013 : 14:45:05

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

The way I read the CBA agreement parts on specifically regarding buyouts, stated that the Amnesty buyouts were for 100% of contract value, but as a consession they were still split over twice the length of the contract 16 years at $2.6875 million per year and did not count against the future cap. Where as Compliance buyouts will follow with prior CBA rules, which were 2/3 total value $43 million remaining, split over the term of twice the length of the contract and count against the cap at $1.79 million per year for the remaining years.

Trading a player who retires before the end of the contract results in both parties recieving 50% of the cap hit over the remaining length of the contract. Most figure Loungo wont be playing to the end of his contract and this is a very real threat. What I am not clear is if he does get bought out after being traded, does Vancouver receive a portion of the buyout.

Either way I would rather use a compliance buyout at $1.79 million a few years down the road, rather than risking Loungo retiring while playing for another team and having a larger cap hit at $2.69 million.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

You seem to be basing your rationale for (or against) this trade on incorrect facts about buyouts and cap hits of said buyouts.

http://www.capgeek.com/new-cba/ - read the Buyouts section. Compliance (aka "amnesty") buyouts follow the same rules as ordinary buyouts, except they don't count against the cap. The only exceptions to that rule were for Gomez and Redden who were bought out early - both of them received full pay for the 12/13 season, but will fall to regular buyout rules starting next season, which is 1/3 or 2/3 of salary remaining, paid over x2 years. Anyone bought out now would follow the regular buyout rules as well.

Based on this ruling, Luongo would cost the Canucks 27M spread over 18 years. Fleury would cost 6.5M over 4 years.

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2013/01/08/explaining-the-luongo-rule-in-the-new-cba/ - the "Luongo rule" explained. There are cap penalties assigned to teams based on the cap savings that either one receives from the contract, it is not necessarily 50/50. Assuming VAN trades Luongo now, they will have saved 7.5M on his contract (the cumulative difference between salary and cap hit) over the last 3 years, and would be penalized that amount spread over the number of years Luongo has left on his deal when he retires.

If he gets traded to PIT, and plays 3 years there, the cap hit would be shared across both teams, but at rates relative to the cap relief that each recieved from Luongo's contract. VAN would still get charged 7.5M over 6 years (the number of years he had remaining), and PIT would get charged 5-ish M (the amount of cap savings they would get from Luongo's deal in the 3 years they owned him) over 6 years.

Alex116

Posted - 06/11/2013 : 10:12:49 It's not doubt this twist in the new CBA has thrown a wrench into dealings that teams are facing. NO WAY in the world would any team have signed any of these long term deals had they know that even if they manage to trade their guy, it could still affect them financially and cap space-wise.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 06/11/2013 : 10:09:59 The way I read the CBA agreement parts on specifically regarding buyouts, stated that the Amnesty buyouts were for 100% of contract value, but as a consession they were still split over twice the length of the contract 16 years at $2.6875 million per year and did not count against the future cap. Where as Compliance buyouts will follow with prior CBA rules, which were 2/3 total value $43 million remaining, split over the term of twice the length of the contract and count against the cap at $1.79 million per year for the remaining years.

Trading a player who retires before the end of the contract results in both parties recieving 50% of the cap hit over the remaining length of the contract. Most figure Loungo wont be playing to the end of his contract and this is a very real threat. What I am not clear is if he does get bought out after being traded, does Vancouver receive a portion of the buyout.

Either way I would rather use a compliance buyout at $1.79 million a few years down the road, rather than risking Loungo retiring while playing for another team and having a larger cap hit at $2.69 million.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

nuxfan

Posted - 06/11/2013 : 09:04:03

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

Good points by both of you, only if the Canucks receive a player in return. The only thing is if they buy him out now they have to pay him 100% of his contract value at $42.666 million over the next 8 years, but he is off the books this year and they can move forward with good cap position.

If they trade him away for Fleury and buy Fleury out at $10 million, which would also be off the books this year, but in future years Loungo's cap hit can hurt them, as you have pointed out. I dont know if thats a better position cap wise moving forward to take the chance that Loungo plays the majority of his contract.

The other way the team could go is wait in a few years and buyout Loungo at the traditional buyout route a 2/3rds of his contract value stretched over twice the length of the term, also lowering his cap hit.

Myself I would shop Schneider for the young scoring depth and prospects Vancouver really needs moving forward, kiss Loungo's ass and ride him until they are not dealing from a position of weakness.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

To my knowledge, compliance buyouts are only 2/3 remaining contract value - same as regular buyouts. Amounts count towards players share of HRR, but not against individual team caps.

IMO its really a no brainer - on the one had, you have a 100% chance to badly bone your team financially in 6 years time, spend a lot of money over that time, and get nothing back in return. On the other hand, you have a good chance to lessen the pain to your cap situation, spend zero money, and get something back in return. I know which one I'd choose, and I think MG would do the same.

Buying Luongo out later in the contract makes even less sense - you still pay 2/3, you still get penalized for all your savings, and you have his residual counting against your cap for a duration.

I do agree with you that they are probably exploring trading Schneider and keeping Luongo - he would fetch more in return for sure, and at the end of the day, Luongo has a very favourable cap hit at 5.33/year. When he gets tired of playing he could pull a Tim Thomas and "refuse to report", thus allowing the team to suspend him and ride his contract out with no repercussions.

Interesting summer shaping up.

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 06/11/2013 : 08:07:37 Good points by both of you, only if the Canucks receive a player in return. The only thing is if they buy him out now they have to pay him 100% of his contract value at $42.666 million over the next 8 years, but he is off the books this year and they can move forward with good cap position.

If they trade him away for Fleury and buy Fleury out at $10 million, which would also be off the books this year, but in future years Loungo's cap hit can hurt them, as you have pointed out. I dont know if thats a better position cap wise moving forward to take the chance that Loungo plays the majority of his contract.

The other way the team could go is wait in a few years and buyout Loungo at the traditional buyout route a 2/3rds of his contract value stretched over twice the length of the term, also lowering his cap hit.

Myself I would shop Schneider for the young scoring depth and prospects Vancouver really needs moving forward, kiss Loungo's ass and ride him until they are not dealing from a position of weakness.

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

Alex116

Posted - 06/10/2013 : 21:21:52

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADA

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

Rumours have been flying about that here but sources say it may require the Canucks to take on Fleury and possibly buy him out?

Fleury is currently owed 2 more years at 5.75 (5 cap hit). A lot of money, but a rich owner might be willing to do this depending what else was in there to sweeten the pot?

How does trading Loungo who they are considering buying out for another goalie with a similar cap hit, only then to buy Fleury out help Vancouver. To top it off if Loungo retires prior to the end of his contract, a portion of his cap hit comes back to haunt the Canucks, as per the new rules of the CBA. Vancouver is in serious trouble salary cap wise with a roster that needs to be revamped in the next few years.

I know Pittsburg would love to have Loungo in there fold with the other talent they have, but would Vancouver actually do this?

Joshua....did you read to the end of my post? As in, the last sentence where i said "....a rich owner might be willing to do this depending what else was in there to sweeten the pot". Meaning, i think Pittsburgh would have to pony up a player a pick or a prospect or something more than just a swap of goalies, otherwise, the Canucks may as well buy out LU and not have to worry about his contract biting them in the ass down the road (aside from the actual cost of said buyout).

nuxfan.....i really don't see Booth being bought out. Ballard maybe, unless they can trade him to a team looking for dmen and with money to spend and cap space to fill. Neither is a given, but i'd say Ballard is much closer than Booth. I expect Booth to be given another shot with a healthy (hopefully?) Kesler. He's the prototypical big bodied forward with some skill that the Canucks need. He just needs to produce more than he has!

nuxfan

Posted - 06/10/2013 : 20:04:31

quote:Originally posted by JOSHUACANADAHow does trading Loungo who they are considering buying out for another goalie with a similar cap hit, only then to buy Fleury out help Vancouver.

Luongo buyout - 27M over the next 18 years, including some pretty large cap hit years (5.8M cap hit for each of 19/20, 20/21, 21/22)

Fleury buyout - 7M over the next 4 years, never more than 1.9M cap hit against in any of those 4 years

Thats a pretty compelling difference - in absolute dollars, time on payroll, and in buyout cap hit especially later on. If I'm the owner of the Vancouver Canucks, thats worth considering

quote:To top it off if Loungo retires prior to the end of his contract, a portion of his cap hit comes back to haunt the Canucks, as per the new rules of the CBA. Vancouver is in serious trouble salary cap wise with a roster that needs to be revamped in the next few years.

If VAN buys him out now, his cap hit will come back to haunt VAN for sure - as I said above, in the 3 years from 2019 to 2022, he will account for 5.5M in cap hit.

If VAN trades him and he then retires later, the cap penalty will still sting, but will likely sting less and for less time. It would work in such a way that VAN would be penalized for the amount of savings they got on his salary over the number of years left on Luongo's deal when he retires.

If VAN trades Luongo to PIT this summer, VAN would have gotten the following savings:

- If Luongo retires in 3 years time, he would have 6 years left on his deal, VAN would be penalized 7.5M over 6 years, or 1.1 per year

- If he retires in 6 years time, he would have 3 years left on the deal, VAN would be penalized 7.5M over 3 years, 2.5M per year.

- If he retires with 1 year left on his deal, VAN gets penalized 7.5M for a single season.

- If he fulfills the entire contract, no penality

Looking at the above, those penalties are mostly manageable. The only one that really sucks is if he goes until the last year of the deal. As opposed to the amnesty buyout, which is 100% guaranteed to suck for several years.

quote:I know Pittsburg would love to have Loungo in there fold with the other talent they have, but would Vancouver actually do this?

I think they would. The reality is that they are not going to buy out Luongo - everything about using an amnesty buyout on him hurts the team for a very long time. They would give him away for nothing before buying him out.

The only bugger about the proposed deal is that they would have to use one of their buyouts on Fleury - which means they have one left, and IMO Ballard and Booth to think about.

umteman

Posted - 06/10/2013 : 16:43:45 An article in my local paper this morning quoted Dan Bylsma saying that Fleury will start the coming season as the Pens #1 goalie.

Did you hear about the retired proctologist? He spent 40 years saying "what's a place like this doing in a girl like you?"

JOSHUACANADA

Posted - 06/10/2013 : 16:35:33

quote:Originally posted by Alex116

Rumours have been flying about that here but sources say it may require the Canucks to take on Fleury and possibly buy him out?

Fleury is currently owed 2 more years at 5.75 (5 cap hit). A lot of money, but a rich owner might be willing to do this depending what else was in there to sweeten the pot?

How does trading Loungo who they are considering buying out for another goalie with a similar cap hit, only then to buy Fleury out help Vancouver. To top it off if Loungo retires prior to the end of his contract, a portion of his cap hit comes back to haunt the Canucks, as per the new rules of the CBA. Vancouver is in serious trouble salary cap wise with a roster that needs to be revamped in the next few years.

I know Pittsburg would love to have Loungo in there fold with the other talent they have, but would Vancouver actually do this?

"I now realise that the Toronto Maple Leafs, Canada's finest hockey team, is better than the Ottawa Senators - and always will be. PS - LOVE that Dion Phaneuf! "

Alex116

Posted - 06/10/2013 : 14:09:13 Rumours have been flying about that here but sources say it may require the Canucks to take on Fleury and possibly buy him out?

Fleury is currently owed 2 more years at 5.75 (5 cap hit). A lot of money, but a rich owner might be willing to do this depending what else was in there to sweeten the pot?